Skip to main content

About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
MSNBCW 9
CNNW 2
KNTV (NBC) 2
CNBC 1
CSPAN 1
LANGUAGE
English 19
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
it as enemy combatant, military court. i know john mccain, lindsey graham, couple of others are pushing for that. you need a little more evidence to know whether you can do that. you really have to know, did he become part of the terrorist war against the united states? these e-mails and texts that they're discovering kind of make a pretty good case that he was part of a group that's at war against the united states. if you can make that case, then you could try him in a military court. you could try him in guantanamo bay and not have the spectacle of this trial having to take place in boston or some other place where they would change venue. >> are you sure about military court? as i understand, it was for noncitizens and for foreign nationals. >> if a citizen becomes part of the war effort against the united states -- let's take an example like this. let's take the second world war. let's say an american citizen went to germany and joined the nazi army and invaded the united states, we could try that person in a military court. now, the nature of this war is so ambiguous, you're going
terrorist organizations that he has knowledge of. >> reporter: lindsey graham says the enemy combatant designation would allow them to question dzhokhar tsarnaev without a lawyer saying none of that information could be used against him. dianne feinstein argues question can happen for a limited amount of time without calling him an enemy combatant. it let's investigators question a suspect about any imminent threat. >> i am not worried about whether they can convicted. the question is, what else would they have been up to? who are their associates? how did he become radicalized? is there a chechynian connection. that's what has to be discovered. >> reporter: there is also debate about tamerlan tsarnaev shot dead during the manhunt. they interviewed him at the request of russia and dropped the matter after asking for more specific information from russia the fbi never received. >> why is this fbi interview important? because if he was on the radar and they let him go, he was on the russian's radar, why wasn't a flag put on him. >> reporter: michael mccall says he and fellow republican,
court. i know john mccain, lindsey graham, couple of others are pushing for that. you need a little more evidence to know whether you can do that. you really have to know, did he become part of the terrorist war against the united states? these e-mails and texts that they're discovering kind of make a pretty good case that he was part of a group that's at war against the united states. if you can make that case, then you could try him in a military court. you could try him in guantanamo bay and not have the spectacle of this trial having to take place in boston or some other place where they would change venue. >> are you sure about military court? as i understand, it was for noncitizens and for foreign nationals. >> if a citizen becomes part of the war effort against the united states -- let's take an example like this. let's take the second world war. let's say an american citizen went to germany and joined the nazi army and invaded the united states, we could try that person in a military court. now, the nature of this war is so ambiguous, you're going to get a lot of arguments as to
bell lindsey graham, why isn't he being treated as an enemy combatant? that one to me -- >> what about benghazi? >> shut up. >> stephanie: i'll always have benghazi. it is my terror. no. >> i would never go thirsty again. i'll have another mint julep thank you. >> stephanie: the legal expert i heard this weekend said this is a nonstarter to treat him as enemy combatants. did he a crime on u.s. soil. >> peter king said this. >> i believe -- should be portrayed as enemy combatants. senator mccain, senator graham, senator ayotte, there are so many questions unanswered so many potential links to terrorism here. the battlefield is now in the united states. i believe he is an enemy combatant. ultimately, he will be tried in a civilian court and the statements taken from him cannot be used against him in that trial. right now, the only links we have as much as chechnyan involvement in the islamic movement. are there other conspirators out there? where do they get the radicalization? >> he sounds like pam gellar. might as well grow some gigantic boobs. >> stephanie: run-on sentence please, for
on watching that first-hand. lindsey graham says we need to up our game. we're still at war. now there's the big debate on spending right now. is this the time that to cut homeland security spending or to go after that budget or what is your view on that? because you know for two years now you've been talking about debt and deficit spending. and in this sense it all ties back together. >> well, what's driving our spending and driving our debt is the fact that there are 10,000 baby boomers like me retiring every day. 70,000 this week. 3.5 million this year. social security, medicare, there is no money there in those fund. it has all been spent. people are living longer, accessing medicaid. so the real drivers of the debt primarily are our big entitlement programs that won't survive in their current form unless we make some changes. so it has got, it really has nothing to do with what we call the discretionary spending pot. bill: understood. homeland security spending is not touched? >> we have the sequester because the president won't get serious about solving our big spending problem.
. again, on this sunday. mike, thanks. >>> south carolina senator lindsey graham is leading the charge to label the boston marathon suspect an enemy combatant. he explained why on cnn this morning. take a listen. >> when the public safety exception expires and it will soon this man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist that he has knowledge of and that evidence cannot be used against him in trial. >> the american civil liberties union, aclu, opposes this, "we must not waiver from our tried and true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. denial of rights is un-american and will only make it harder to obtain a fair conviction." how will this play out politically? with me, stephen smith of "the boston globe," dave weigel and lynn sweet of the chicago sun-times. good to see you all on this sunday. lynn, let me start with you here at least. four our republican senators joined in lindsey graham's call
advocates, republicans, are saying such as lindsey graham are -- we understand, they say, we understand he's going to be tried in civilian court but start the questioning -- treat him as an enemy combatant under the law of war. question him by intelligence people. get all the intel you can. then turn him over to the civ civilian authorities. that's what they advocate. that's not going to happen, the administration has decided. he'll be questioned first by this special group set up in the last couple of years in terror cases called the high value detainee interrogation group, fbi cia, dod. they don't have a long time to do that, probably no more than a day or so. then he'll be begin his miranda warning and we'll see if he continues to talk. in other terrorism cases, surprisingly, these people do keep talking. >> mike rogers, chairman, do you have a view how he should be treated in the criminal justice system? >> he's a citizen of the united states. i think that brings all of those protections of the u.s. constitution under the public safety exception, however, i do believe that the fbi has
an extended trip to russia last year. today on cnn's "state of the union" senator lindsey graham said there were plenty of clues that tsarnaev had been radicalized. >> the ball was dropped in one of two ways. the fbi missed a lot of things, is one potential answer. or our laws do not allow the fbi to follow-up in a sound, solid way. there was a lot to be learned from this guy. he was on websites talking about killing americans. he went overseas, as chuck indicated. he was clearly talking about radical ideas. he was visiting radical areas. it's people like this that you don't want to let out of your sight. and this was a mistake. i don't know if our laws are insufficient or the fbi failed, but we're at war with radical islamists and we need to up our game. >> the chairman of the house homeland security committee is also weighing in on this topic. he told our candy crowley that tamerlan tsarnaev received what he called training while in russia and he thinks tsarnaev made more than one trip to the region. we are learning more about the suspects from the russian republic of dagestan where
an enemy combatant are those republicans, among them john mccain and lindsey graham. but there's others, they say basically he should be treated as an enemy combatant for now and then handed over to civilian authorities. the information we're learning about his inability to communicate right now throws a wrench into a lot of that. but on the other side, we heard today from the chairman of the intelligence committee of the house, mike rogers, and here is his perspective on why he should not be treated like an enemy combatant. >> he's a citizen of the united states. i think that brings all of the protections of the u.s. constitution. under the public safety exception, however, i do believe that the fbi has a period of time to try to determine what threats are there today. we don't know if there's other devices. we don't know if there's other people. i think mirandizing him up front would be a horrible idea. >> so there are really a series of questions there. first, should he be treated as a criminal -- excuse me, as a -- i want to make sure i get it right, as an enemy combatant. that ques
spoke yesterday on capitol hill. fourrepublicans and democrats. lindsey graham of south carolina addressed concerns that he has heard from his peers about the pathway to citizenship. [video clip] >> learn the language, as a civics exams, pay a fine, work, pass a criminal background check, half of my family would be excluded. this is no easy task. [laughter] i'm glad we are not applying it to ourselves. knowope is that america i is ready for immigration reform. you look at all the polls. if the congress ready to do something that we should have done a long time ago? i really believe we are. if you think the border can be better secured, we have an idea for you to consider. if if you think there is a shortage of illegal labor in the current system works too hard to access, we have an idea for you to consider. if you are a union member or just an average american word about losing your job with cheap labor coming into your country, we have an idea to prevent that. if you are in the shadows and you are worried about what's going to happen to you, we have a solution. you are going to
. lindsey graham has said there are two possible ways that the fbi dropped the ball on this. first, it could have been a systemic failure in the sense that the procedures were following up on these warnings were floored or secondly there was some individual floor related to this. >> briefly, because you have said that, look, despite the fact that this may now have russia sort of saying, look, we tried to warn the u.s., look at that relationship between russia and chechnya, just because the u.s. and russia have to communicate about this issue, that it could help relations between these two countries. >> that's something we can see going forward. u.s.-russian relations have been terrible the last few years. a travel ban and asset freeze on senior russian officials and the russians retaliated with a sisir ban on u.s. officials linked with guantanamo bay. >> and he's u.s. adoptions. >> u.s. adoptions, exactly. there's indications that relations could be warming and is we have the winter olympics next year in sochi. >> we'll need a lot of international cooperation on security, as well. >> exactly
senator lindsey graham, specifically from senator john mccain for the suspect to be treated as an enemy combatant. how is legal action at this point most likely to move forward? >> reporter: well, the obama administration would never go for that, partly as a policy matter. they have made it quite clear that civilian courts are up to the task and they think in many ways better than military tribunals which are untested. civilian courts have convicted lots of terrorism defendants. it will be a federal case. they'll charge him withes with use of a weapons of mass destruction. the maximum penalty is the death penalty. the government will have to decide whether to seek that or not. there's an additional wrinkle here. he is an american citizen. he was a naturalized citizen last year oddly on 9/11 of last year, and there is an open legal question about whether even if the government wanted to, it could declare an american citizen captured on u.s. soil as an enemy combatant. it's an untested question. the government tried to do it in the case of jose padilla several years ago and as that case w
got in terms of a note that was handed to me talking about a few senators, lindsey graham, john mccain, kelly ayotte, congressman peter king, all of whom have said this suspect based on his actions clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. we do not want this suspect to remain silent. talk about that in terms of what prosecutors are doing right now. is that the path down which prosecutors and any investigators are going right now? >> well, it's unclear whether or not they're going down that path to identify and designate him as an enemy combatant but they should at least go down the path to determine whether or not that is the designation they should make for this particular person. then they should do it based on our national security, national interest to determine whether or not identifying him as an enemy combatant will actually enhance our national security and national interest. >> what about the charges? what do you expect them to be against dzhokhar. >> well, if he's not designated as an enemy combat eant he wille charged federally. the first decision has to b
, republican senators lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, congressman peter king a short time ago, issued a statement this morning asking for the suspect to be tried as an enemy combatant. they said, in part, "we do not want the suspect to remain silent." senator chambliss, vice chair of the subcommittee on violence said "i'm disappointed that it appears this administration is once again relying on miranda's public safety exception to gather intelligence which only allows, at best, a 48-hour waiting period that may expire since the suspect has been critically wounded." will there be a public outcry, ed o'keefe, about all that's given, the suspect is a natural citizen? >> with those five senators -- lawmakers, certainly the outcry could potentially be beginning. it's no surprise that that quintet, if you will, is calling for the administration to handle him as what they describe as an enemy combat talent. the obama administration doesn't use that term anymore it allows for an indefinite detention of someone under national security concerns. that's what they are hoping for. we will see what the justice
president obama is calling it terror. lindsey graham sweet twooetieet telling him to remain silent. that would be the last thing. somehow terrorism makes it fine, right? >> we don't really know if this is terrorism. we don't know if there's political motivations. >> we don't know. we have to establish the definition of terror. everybody was terrorized. the political definition is something else. secondly, john ralston said imagine if you're the person subjected to the recriminations you want to put forth. be very careful if something happens in your family and your kid does something and your kid is on the terror list and the no-fly list, that's a different kettle of fish. it's unfamiliar evil versus familiar evil. when you made the point about we've incubated in our own culture a homegrown terrorist, that strikes terror at the heart of america. guess what? hey, ask the minority people, we're familiar with homegrown domestic terrorists. those ain't muslim, they're christian and twisting the cross and doing things. we have to be very careful about assuming that immediately this was
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)